Climate change's long-lasting effects on humanity and the environment have been discussed at length, with many of its ramifications often appearing distant. Among these, however, one stands out as not only timely, but incredibly relevant and universal: public health. With drastic changes in temperature having the potential to affect almost every basic human necessity – from water and air quality, to food safety and heat regulation – climate change poses an imminent threat to human health. So much so that it was listed as one of the top ten leading public health concerns for 2024.
While climate change is a mass global issue, its effects have been notoriously linked to socioeconomic inequality, disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations. Climate change persists because it stems from mechanisms that serve a specific subset of the population (take big-tech companies for example), while harming the remaining vast majority. This dynamic is clearly illustrated by New York City’s five boroughs. With approximately 300 miles of square footage, and over 8.4 million residents, New York City is not just the most populated city in the United States, but also one of the most economically and socially diverse–providing an ideal case study.
The idea that vast differences in socioeconomic conditions could have correspondingly vast differences on climate effects is not new. In 2017, the city was required to create a mapping tool showcasing this exact effect. This helped coin what is now known as "environmental justice”: a term given to areas with elevated pollution and health issues, due to a long history of societal neglect.
Recent studies suggest that the neighborhoods in New York most unprepared for climate change tend to share three key characteristics: low income, a history of redlining, and English as a second language. Data also shows that approximately 49% of New Yorkers live in environmental justice areas, which are predominantly home to low-income families and people of color. Ozone pollution and air quality provide a clear example: the New York-Newark area was recently ranked the among the worst in the nation, with pollution concentrated primarily across poorer, racially diverse neighborhoods such as the South Bronx, Central Bronx, Central Brooklyn, and Northern Manhattan. Notably, the Bronx contains the highest number of environmental justice areas.
Like pollution, temperature itself is not experienced equally. The New York City Health department found that Black New Yorkers' heat-stress death rates are twice as high as those of their White counterparts, a disparity that stems from systemic inequalities, including inequitable access to air conditioning, public parks, and housing, as a disproportionate share of Black New Yorkers live in close proximity to waste processing facilities and delivery routes.
These discrepancies are due, in part, to housing prices. Areas on waterfronts, like the North Shore of Staten Island or the Brooklyn-Queens Waterfront, tend to be home to clusters of industrial infrastructure, and therefore tend to be cheaper. They also tend to be particularly vulnerable to pollution and storm surges–both of which contribute to increased health risks. Thus, creating a world in which affordable New York housing comes at the cost of increased climate change repercussions, as well as the health determinants that follow.
The larger paradoxical nature of climate change is not lost on the general public–mass corporations are the ones creating mass pollution, making money at the expense of the environment and people's health. As is shown above, minority communities and people in poverty tend to carry the brunt of the climate ramifications, but it should be noted that they are primarily not the ones largely contributing to climate change via individual carbon footprint.
According to data analyzed by The New York Times, there are stark disparities between higher and lower income houses' contribution to climate change. Typically, dense and “transit friendly” neighborhoods in close proximity to cities tend to have lower household emissions–even some of the lowest emissions in the nation–wheras wealthier households–think the Upper East Side for example–tend to have a larger carbon footprint than their “neighbors just a few blocks away”.
Climate change as one of the top concerns for public health, combined with the juxtaposition between those producing the carbon emissions and those suffering the consequences, is especially drastic as it culminates in the understanding that a major variable impacting people's future health is their income and socioeconomic status.
It should be noted that the health burden caused by these weather conditions is not only disproportionately borne by poorer, marginalized communities, to begin with, but that these ramifications are also exacerbated by the coinciding differences in unequal access to healthcare.
To combat some of these climate effects, New York City enacted Local Law 97 in 2019, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by almost 50% – placing carbon caps on nearly 50,000 properties across the city. Implementation began in 2024 and will continue through 2050. With that being said, the borough expected to experience the most effects from this law is Manhattan, followed by the Bronx.
Though potentially beneficial, hindering the healthcare of nearly half the city on one law set to fully take shape only in 2050, seems not only incredibly risky, but incredibly inadequate and unjust to those from marginalized and poorer communities who are disproportionately affected by climate change to begin with.
Broadly speaking, by letting climate change continue in such a matter, we are not only hurting those most impacted, but making way for the cycles of inequality and norms of hindered capabilities to be perpetuated and maintained. Essentially, by not allowing those from marginalized communities a fair starting point, the possibility of escaping the cycle of poverty becomes incredibly slim, with climate changes’ disproportionate health effects escalating vantage points every day.